See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321683580
The Ahmarian in the Context of the Earlier Upper Palaeolithic in the Near East
Chapter · January 2018
DOI: 10.1007/978-981-10-6826-3_7
CITATIONS
0
READS
258
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Kfar HaHoresh - A Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (PPNB) cult & mortuary site in lower Galilee, Israel View project
The initiation of sedentism and networking in the Terminal Pleistocene/Early Holocene of Cappadocia View project
Adrian Nigel Goring-Morris
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
176 PUBLICATIONS   2,576 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
Anna Belfer-Cohen
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
163 PUBLICATIONS   4,492 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Anna Belfer-Cohen on 11 September 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
87© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018
Y. Nishiaki, T. Akazawa (eds.), The Middle and Upper Paleolithic Archeology of the Levant and Beyond, Replacement of
Neanderthals by Modern Humans Series, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6826-3_7
The Ahmarian in the Context
of the Earlier Upper Palaeolithic
in the Near East
Nigel Goring-Morris and Anna Belfer-Cohen
Abstract
There is a general consensus that the Ahmarian techno-complex represents an endemic
Upper Palaeolithic entity that emerged in south-westernAsia. Its entrenchment in the region
is apparent over a long chronological span and a wide geographic range, as is most especially
apparent in the Levant. Notwithstanding diachronic and synchronic variability, its
basic parameters have been widely recognized since it was first defined over 30 years ago.
The Ahmarian characterization is based on certain intrinsic features as well as on the
absence of hallmarks of other Upper Palaeolithic entities identified in the region.
Keywords
Levant • IUP • Ahmarian • Techno-typological variability • Early Upper Palaeolithic
7.1	 Introduction
According to data from current research it is quite obvious
that the Ahmarian complex as accepted today displays a
wide range of diachronic and synchronic techno-typological
characteristics. Sufficient information has accrued to attempt
to define the Ahmarian from an evolutionary perspective,
i.e., how it differs from the preceding Initial Upper
Palaeolithic (IUP) entities, as well as from the subsequent
industries, whether acknowledged as belonging to the Upper
Palaeolithic, or heralding the following Epipalaeolithic
period. The resulting picture will enable more precise assignment
of the Ahmarian techno-complex within the larger
framework of developments during the Upper Palaeolithic
period in the Levant.
7.2	 The Chronological Framework
Based on recent radiometric date-sets from Mediterranean
zone sites it appears that the Mousterian/Upper Palaeolithic
interface dates either to 49/48-47/46k calBP according to 14
C
dating of charcoal samples from Kebara cave (Rebollo et al.
2011), or to 43/42 k calBP based on 14
C dates on mollusks
obtained from Ksar Akil rockshelter (Douka et al. 2013,
2015); or >43.9 k calBP, also on mollusks from the same site
(Bosch et al. 2015a, b). The dates of the IUP at Üçağızlı
cave, Turkey, cluster between 45-40 k calBP, though it is
uncertain whether the base of the sequence there corresponds
with the beginning of the IUP (Kuhn et al. 2009) (Figs. 7.1
and 7.2). The marginal zone site of Boker Tachtit that yielded
the first industry defined as IUP (Marks and Ferring 1988) is
currently being re-investigated, the principle focus being a
dating program that is likely to elucidate matters further
(O. Barzilai pers. comm.). In this context, the recent dating
of a modern human cranium from Manot cave raises the possibility
of an even earlier date for the Middle Palaeolithic/
Upper Palaeolithic (MP/UP) transition (Hershkovitz et al.
2015). Nevertheless it seems to us that the dates from Kebara
are currently more apposite for dating the MP/UP transition
in the Levant.
N. Goring-Morris (*) • A. Belfer-Cohen
Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem,
Jerusalem 91905, Israel
e-mail: nigel.goring-morris@mail.huji.ac.il;
anna.belfer-cohen@mail.huji.ac.il
7
88
Fig.7.1  Distribution of Initial Upper Palaeolithic sites in the Levant
N. Goring-Morris and A. Belfer-Cohen
89
Fig.7.2  Typical IUP chipped stone artefacts: unretouched (Levallois) points, Emireh points, chamfered pieces, endscraper and cores. Note faceting
on many items (After Fox 2003, Marks and Kaufman 1983, Newcomer 1968–1969)
7  The Ahmarian in the Context of the Earlier Upper Palaeolithic in the Near East
90
Indeed, the age of the Levantine IUP industries that overlie
the Mousterian layers, i.e. the ‘Emiran’ and ‘Ksar Akil
Phase 1’(to mention but some of those currently recognized),
is presently a principle bone of contention (e.g. Kadowaki
2017; Marks 1983; Williams and Bergman 2010). One
should bear in mind that in current research it is considered
as a given that such industries represent groups of modern
humans coming out-of-Africa on their way to world expansion.
Their route of dispersal and their first appearance in
Eurasia are focal issues of on-going archaeological and
paleoanthropological studies, with significant repercussions
as regards the interactions of these groups with indigenous
populations (Neanderthals and others), processes of assimilation
and/or annihilation, and whether these were short or
long term processes (Arensburg and Belfer-Cohen 1998;
Callaway 2014; Pennisi 2013; Reich et al. 2010; Teyssandier
2008; Teyssandier et al. 2010; Zilhão 2013, 2014; and references
therein).
Notwithstanding these problematics, the first Early Upper
Palaeolithic (EUP) techno-complex in the Levant is the
Ahmarian. Beginning ca. 40/41 k calBP it is present in both
the Mediterranean zone, i.e. in Kebara, Manot and Üçağızlı
caves and at Ksar Akil rockshelter, as well as in the more arid
margins, i.e. the open-air sites of Abu Noshra, Boqer and
Wadi Hasa (Barzilai et al. 2014; Coinman 2000; Douka et al.
2013; Kuhn et al. 2009; Marks 1983; Phillips 1994; Rebollo
et al. 2011).
7.2.1	 The Ahmarian Techno-complex
(Figs. 7.3,7.4,7.5 and 7.6)
TheAhmarian tradition, as originally defined, independently,
by both Marks (1981) and Gilead (1981), represented blade/
bladelet industries that lasted through to, and include the
Late Glacial Maximum (LGM). It was then divided into an
early phase, the Early Ahmarian and a later phase, the Late
Ahmarian continuing unto the early Epipalaeolithic – up to
ca. 23/2-20 k calBP (Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris 2003).
Indeed, one can observe technological continuity from the
Ahmarian to the early Epipalaeolithic industries (Ferring
1988; Gilead 1991; Marks 2003). This is reflected in the
shared leptolithic character and the use of ‘narrow-fronted’
(NF) core reduction sequences.
Yet, a distinctive shift towards microlithisation, with an
emphasis on elongated finely retouched/backed bladelets is
observed already before ca. 30 k calBP at Boqer BE in the
central Negev, as well as in northern Sinai (Bar-Yosef and
Belfer 1977; Jones et al. 1983). Indeed it is interesting to
note that in the Lagaman variant of the north Sinai Ahmarian
a bimodal distribution of microlithic bladelet blanks and
macrolithic blades is already apparent, e.g. at Lagama V-VII
(Bar-Yosef and Belfer 1977, Fig. 16) as also at Boqer A
(Monigal 2003, p. 126). Similar processes can also be recognized
in the Mediterranean zone at Ksar Akil post-level X
(Bergman 1987; Williams and Bergman 2010).
Back in the 1980s, when the Ahmarian was first recognized
and defined, it was assumed that this techno-complex
existed in parallel with the Levantine Aurignacian throughout
the UP sequence in both the Mediterranean and marginal
zones (Gilead 1981; Marks 1981). New data and re-­
interpretation of old evidence has revealed that this is not the
case.
Originally, the term ‘Aurignacian’ designated in Europe
the earliest Upper Palaeolithic industries, following the
Middle Palaeolithic Mousterian. Without going into a
detailed discussion of how this approach impacted prehistoric
research in Eurasia at large (and see Belfer-Cohen and
Goring-Morris 2014a, b), it is quite clear that the oldest
industries attributed to this taxon, namely ‘Proto-­
Aurignacian’ and ‘Aurignacian 0’ closely resemble the
Levantine Ahmarian (Teyssandier et al. 2010; and see Zilhão
2014 and references therein). By contrast, the later
‘Aurignacian I’ represents a quite different phenomenon,
with distinct techno-typological, geographic and chronological
characteristics, different from the ‘Proto-Aurignacian’
(and see Conard and Bolus 2006; Teyssandier 2008).
The relatively few Levantine assemblages that still retain
the appellation ‘Aurignacian’ – portraying characteristics of
the European classic Aurignacian, or ‘Aurignacian I’ – post-­
date their European counterparts, dating (when dates are
available) to ca. 37.5 k calBP (Barzilai et al. 2014; Belfer-­
Cohen and Goring-Morris 2014b; Goring-Morris and Belfer-­
Cohen 2006; Goring-Morris et al. 2009; Lengyel et al. 2006;
Otte et al. 2012). These assemblages, termed the ‘Levantine
Aurignacian’ are always found, when in stratigraphic context,
above the Ahmarian, for example in the sites of Kebara,
Ksar Akil, Manot and Yabroud (Bar-Yosef et al. 1996;
Barzilai et al. 2014; Douka et al. 2013; Marder et al. 2013;
Mellars 2006; Rust 1950; Williams and Bergman 2010).
Their geographic spread is restricted, being confined to the
Mediterranean (mostly coastal) zone (Fig. 7.7); they appear
to be coeval with quite a number of later ‘Early’ Ahmarian
sites in the more arid zones (Bar-Yosef and Belfer 1977;
Coinman 2003; Marks 1983).
It is early days to evaluate whether there was any direct
connection between the ‘Ahmarians’ and the ‘Aurignacians’.
Still, it is of interest to note that the local Aurignacian assemblages
do include considerable numbers of el-Wad points,
the fossile directeur of the Ahmarian, while their morphological
equivalent in Europe, assigned to the ‘classic’
Aurignacian, the Font-Yves point, occurs in lesser frequencies.
Indeed, D. Garrod wrote in Garrod 1953 “...the small,
sharp Font-Yves point, which is the special feature of Upper
Palaeolithic III [i.e., the Levantine Aurignacian of today], is
hardly known in the West” (Garrod 1953, p. 25). Here, it is
perhaps relevant to note that the el-Wad point as, indeed, the
Font-Yves point, represents a general and quite simple typoN.
Goring-Morris and A. Belfer-Cohen
91
Fig.7.3  Upper, Erq el-Ahmar rockshelter; lower, the site of Boker (arrow, centre right of photo) in Nahal Zin
7  The Ahmarian in the Context of the Earlier Upper Palaeolithic in the Near East
92
Fig.7.4  Distribution of Ahmarian sites in the Levant
N. Goring-Morris and A. Belfer-Cohen
93
Fig.7.5  Typical earlier Ahmarian chipped stone artefacts: el Wad points, endscrapers, burins, truncation, and narrow-fronted cores
7  The Ahmarian in the Context of the Earlier Upper Palaeolithic in the Near East
94
Fig.7.6  Typical later Ahmarian chipped stone artefacts: el Wad points, bitrucated blades, Ksar Akil scrapers, endscrapers, burin, narrow-fronted
core (After Coinman 2003, Jones et al. 1983)
N. Goring-Morris and A. Belfer-Cohen
95
logical concept, being a plain narrow, convergent pointed
blade/let partially or completely retouched on one or both
lateral edges (and see Copeland 2003; Hours 1974).
The techno-typological characteristics of the Ahmarian
vary both chronologically and regionally. The ‘radical’ shift
from MP to UP technological approaches concerning knapping
and tool production occurred during the course of the
IUP, reflecting a general shift from a Middle Palaeolithic
‘surficial’ exploitation (with faceting) for the production of
blanks, to a typically Upper Palaeolithic ‘volumetric’
Fig.7.7  Distribution of Levantine Aurignacian, Arqov/Divshon and Atlitian sites in the Levant
7  The Ahmarian in the Context of the Earlier Upper Palaeolithic in the Near East
96
approach, with the systematic production of sequences of
blade/let blanks (Inizan et al. 1992). Actually, such re-­
orientation of preparation surfaces was less revolutionary
than is sometimes portrayed. This is reflected by the continued
occurrence of ‘Nubian’ (MP) bidirectional convergent
point cores in the IUP Emiran at Boqer Tachtit (Marks and
Kaufman 1983, figs. 5-3:c-f [level 1], 5-11:d [level 2]). Many
of the Emireh and ‘Levallois’ points there appear to derive
from such opposed platform cores (Marks and Kaufman
1983, Figs. 5-6 and 5-7). But, in addition, at Boqer Tachtit
this is accompanied already by cresting, a hallmark of future
UP technologies. One can also observe in the IUP industries
(the ‘Emiran’ and ‘Ksar Akil Phase 1’ and others) a continuous
shift from platform faceting to abrasion of the removal
surface prior to the serial removal of blades, the beginnings
of which can be traced already, for example, in the Late
Mousterian open-air sites of MNO (Sharon and Oron 2014)
and Umm el-Tlel (Bourguignon 1996, 1998).
Indeed, in terms of most tool classes the shift from MP to
UP had already occurred in the Emiran at Boqer Tachtit,
where sidescrapers are initially rare and disappear completely
during the sequence, being replaced by endscrapers
and burins, which become a major component of future UP
tool assemblages (Marks and Kaufman 1983). It is only the
‘Levallois’ and basally thinned Emireh points that still portray
MP characteristics.
7.2.2	 The Ahmarian Reduction Sequence
In line with the changes that had occurred during the MP/UP
transition, Ahmarian knapping concepts were already fully
UP in terms of the reduction sequences. All-in-all the
Ahmarian is dominated by ‘narrow-fronted’ core preforms
(Fig. 7.5). There is a common assumption concerning a corresponding
shift from the use of direct, hard hammer percussion
during the MP to the use of soft, organic percussors for
the UP industries, This explicates the different appearance of
the blade/let blanks platforms (and see above), though there
is actually little obvious evidence for such a shift. It seems
quite likely that lighter hammers of softer stones could as
easily account for the observed distinction.
Still, while the Ahmarian is characterized by a standardized
approach to serial blade/bladelet blank production, local
variations can be detected, likely reflecting adaptations to the
nature and shape of available raw materials, amongst others.
It is of interest to note that blade/let production in the marginal
areas was notably more gracile than inAhmarian assem-
blagesintheMediterraneanzone.Anothergeneralobservation
concerns the use of bidirectional platforms, which are clearly
more common in Ahmarian assemblages in the north, e.g.
Kebara, Qafzeh, Manot, Ksar Akil (Bar-Yosef and BelferCohen
2004, in prep.; Barzilai et al. 2014; Kadowaki et al.
2015; Williams and Bergman 2010), while in the south they
rarely exceed 15% (Bar-Yosef and Belfer 1977; Coinman
2003; Ferring 1980, 1988; Gilead 1981; Goring-Morris
1995a, b; Jones et al. 1983; Marks and Ferring 1988).
The nodules in the southern sites were often split into two
in order to initiate the reduction sequence (Davidzon and
Goring-Morris 2003; Jones et al. 1983; Monigal 2003).
Decortication was sometimes accomplished during preliminary
core preparation, e.g. Ein Qadis IV and Nahal Nizzana
XIII, where raw material in the form of wadi cobbles and
nodules was used so that the resulting large cortical flakes
could be fashioned into macro tools, e.g. endscrapers
(Goring-Morris 1995a; Goring-Morris and Davidzon 2006).
By contrast, at other sites, e.g. Boker A, discoidal nodules
from readily available outcrops were exploited and a large
portion of the decortication was accomplished later, during
the removal of targeted blade/lets (Monigal 2003).
Retention of the obtuse striking platform angle in relation
to the removal surface was maintained by the removal of
classic core tablets, thus enabling the serial removals of
numerous incurvate, convergent blade/let blanks. These display
signs of abrasion of the removal surface and small or
punctiform striking platforms, sometimes lipped. Other
larger blanks for the macro tool component, e.g. burins, frequently
derive from such core rejuvenation, i.e. the actual
core-tablets (e.g. Davidzon and Goring-Morris 2003;
Monigal 2003). Inasmuch as cresting occurs, it was usually
to ensure the somewhat incurvate profile of the blade/let
blanks; bifacial or unifacial retouch being applied to thin the
keel of the core, resulting in most ridge blades displaying
dorsal bifacial/unifacial removals towards the distal tip.
There is a general diachronic decline in the size of blanks
and points during the course of the ‘Ahmarian’ sensu lato,
e.g. in the sequences observed in Ksar Akil and Boker (Jones
et al. 1983; Kadowaki 2013; Williams and Bergman 2010).
However, it is also important to note that a bimodal distribution
of retouched blade/let sizes was already apparent in the
Lagaman sites and at Boker BE (Bar-Yosef and Belfer 1977;
Jones et al. 1983; Monigal 2003).
In terms of typological characteristics a contrast between
the Mediterranean zone and the arid margins is observed in
the more ‘balanced’ composition of Ahmarian assemblages
in the former with a greater abundance of scrapers and burin
classes relative to the points and retouched blade/lets. In the
arid margins the toolkit composition is more variable, with
differentiation between more ephemeral hunting camps, e.g.
the Lagaman sites, where there is an emphasis on points and
retouched blade/lets at the expense of scrapers and burins;
and larger, home bases such as Sde Divshon (D27b) where,
in addition to the points and retouched blade/lets, there are
also higher frequencies of scrapers, burins and notches.
There are also distinctive tool types, such as the finely denticulated
KsarAkil scrapers (Fig. 7.6). They appear sporadically
N. Goring-Morris and A. Belfer-Cohen
97
in certain later Ahmarian assemblages in both the northern and
southern Levant, e.g. KsarAkil LevelsV and IV,Antelias and el
Wad (Copeland 1982; Williams and Bergman 2010), as well as
Boker BE levels III-VI in the Negev and Thalab al-Buhayra and
Ayn al-Buhayra in Transjordan (Coinman 2002; Jones et al.
1983). Never common, they are totally absent at other sites, e.g.
Kebara, Qafzeh, the Lagaman, etc. An unusual co-association
of Ksar Akil scrapers and bitruncated blades at Boker BE level
V and Thalab al-Buhayra is notable (Fig. 7.6). In these assemblages
the el Wad points display a pattern of diminution and
they date late within the Ahmarian, ca. 31-29 k calBP.
The changes through time during the course of the so-­
called ‘Early’ Ahmarian, currently lasting more than
10,000 years., justify subdividing it into two phases, “early”
and “late”, though each phase is shorter than what was
assigned previously under the same taxon, i.e. “Early” and
“Late” Ahmarian (Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris 2003).
While the ‘Early’ Ahmarian assemblages are well defined
both techno-typologically and chronologically, this is not the
case with the so-called ‘Late’ Ahmarian, thus the assignment
of assemblages to this taxon is problematic. There are few
occupations, if any, which can be considered as directly continuing
from the ‘Early’ Ahmarian, and their dating is problematic.
For example, in Ksar Akil, one of the very few
Levantine sites where there is a long Palaeolithic sequence
comprising Middle, Upper and Epipalaeolithic industries, the
Ahmarian sequence is interrupted by the Levantine
Aurignacian levels and the assemblage from the layer overlying
it, Layer VI (whether we consider the material excavated
in 1937–1938, Phase 6, or that excavated in 1947–1948, Phase
7), differs greatly from the Early Ahmarian of the preceding
levels (Bergman 1987; Williams and Bergman 2010, p. 140).
In the site of Boker BE, also with an impressive UP sequence
(Jones et al. 1983; Marks 1983), levels VII-III, which can be
considered as late in the ‘Early’ Ahmarian, are followed by
levels I-II comprising (small) lithic assemblages that entirely
lack the el-Wad component, the hallmark of the Ahmarian. It
is accepted that these lithic assemblages represent entities that
are not Ahmarian, which rather should be assigned to the
‘Arqov/Divshon’ entity (Fig. 7.8; and see below).
Indeed, the next solid prehistoric entity (in the sense of
number of assemblages, their techno-typological characteristics,
geographic spread and dating) is the ‘Masraqan’, originally
termed the ‘Late Ahmarian’ by Gilead (1981) and
Marks (1981), dating to the LGM, ca. 25-22 k calBP
(Fig.  7.9; Goring-Morris 1995b and references therein).
Apparently this entity, though clearly of a leptolithic nature,
has ‘lost’ the most prominent trademark of the Ahmarian,
namely the el Wad points. Instead, Masraqan assemblages
are dominated by finely retouched (Ouchtata) bladelets (similar
to straight or slightly incurvate Dufour bladelets, i.e. they
are non-twisted), which outnumber, by far, the blade tools
(Fig. 7.10). The majority of these Ouchtata bladelets are not
pointed. It seems that, while representing the culmination of
a trend observed during the course of the ‘Early’ Ahmarian,
this industry also portrays the beginning of a different typo-­
technological development that eventually becomes apparent
in the microlithic entities of the Early and Middle
Epipalaeolithic, when microlith morphologies are fashioned
by retouch and backing, i.e. the Nebekian, Kebaran,
Geometric Kebaran, Mushabian, etc. (Belfer-Cohen and
Goring-Morris 2002).
It appears that the ‘Early’Ahmarian is followed by a variety
of industries, the common denominator of which is the
disappearance of the pointed blades. Among those, which
are earlier in time, differing from the Ahmarian both technologically
and typologically, one can mention the northern
‘Atlitian’ defined by Garrod (Garrod and Bate 1937) based
on her excavations at el-Wad; this was the name given also to
other assemblages, e.g. Level VI in Ksar Akil and Nahal Ein
Gev I (Belfer-Cohen et al. 2004; Copeland 1975 and see
above). Another such entity, encountered in the marginal
zones is represented by the Arqov/Divshon flake-based
industry (Belfer-Cohen and Goring-Morris 2014a; Goring-­
Morris 1980).
In light of the above, we believe that the term ‘Ahmarian’
should be retained only for those assemblages previously
grouped together under the taxon ‘Early’Ahmarian.
7.3	 Discussion
It seems that with the current level of knowledge as regards
the Upper Palaeolithic record in the Levant, the picture differs
quite significantly from that observed in the early
1980s. Indeed, evidence has accrued to indicate that there
were multiple trajectories of change in the Levant beginning
in the latest phases of the MP through the IUP. The
latest phase of the Levantine Mousterian, ca. 75–50 k years
(=MIS 3–4), displays considerable geographic and technotypological
variability (Hovers and Belfer-Cohen 2013). A
clear example is the case of the Mousterian sequence at
Kebara cave, where the assemblage of Unit V differs significantly
from the preceding Mousterian assemblages of
Units VII-VI (Bar-­Yosef and Meignen pers. comms.;
Belfer-Cohen pers. obs.). It is of interest to note that the
IUP industries replacing the Mousterian complex comprise
several geographic and techno-typological variants, e.g. the
IUP of Ksar Akil, Üçağızlı, Umm el-Tlel, Boqer Tachtit,
Tor Sadaf, Wadi Aghar, Tor Fawaz, etc. (Bourguignon
1998; Fox and Coinman 2004; Kadowaki 2017; Kerry and
Henry 2003; Kuhn et al. 2009; Marks and Kaufman 1983;
Monigal 2002; Ohnuma and Bergman 1990). It is these
industries that display a continuation of certain Mousterian
characteristics such as prepared platform faceting – a
Levallois concept – for blank production (e.g., the ‘Emiran’
7  The Ahmarian in the Context of the Earlier Upper Palaeolithic in the Near East
98
Fig. 7.8  Typical Levantine Aurignacian (Dufour bladelets, el Wad
points, Aurignacian blade, split-base antler point, broad carinated
scrapers, core), Atlitian (microliths, burins on Clactonian notches,
core), and Arqov/Divshon (lateral carinated scrapers and burin, twisted
Dufour bladelets, end scraper) chipped stone artefacts
N. Goring-Morris and A. Belfer-Cohen
99
Fig.7.9  Distribution of Masraqan and Nebekian sites in the Levant
7  The Ahmarian in the Context of the Earlier Upper Palaeolithic in the Near East
100
Fig. 7.10  Typical Masraqan chipped stone artefacts: finely retouched Ouchtata bladelets bladelets, Dufour bladelets, endscraper, burin, narrow-­
fronted core
N. Goring-Morris and A. Belfer-Cohen
101
of Boker Tachtit), which is replaced through time by the
typical UP abrasion of the removal surface. Besides distinctive,
though ‘short-lived’ tool forms such as the Emireh
points or the chamfered pieces, the IUP industries comprised,
in growing numbers, tool forms that were to become
hallmarks of the UP entities, such as endscrapers and burins,
and to a lesser degree, blade tools.
Accordingly, the Ahmarian, the first Early Upper
Palaeolithic entity, has nothing to do with the MP/UP transition,
contra previous assumptions, differing in this from the
precedingIUPindustries,beingremovedfromtheMousterian
by 5–10 k years.
At present, it is difficult to pinpoint which of the IUP variants
was the most plausible antecedent for the Ahmarian.
Regrettably, the earliestAhmarian occurrences that have provided
a series of dates, those in Kebara Cave, unconformably
overlie Mousterian deposits with no IUP occupations present
(Rebollo et al. 2011 and references therein; Bar-Yosef and
Belfer-Cohen in prep.). The uppermost level at Boker Tachtit
(Level 4) is represented by mostly, unidirectional cores for
robust blade blanks and a variety of points. Though Marks
and Kaufman (1983) refer to them as ‘non-Levallois’, morphologically
these points do not differ from unidirectional
Levallois points reported from Levantine MP assemblages
elsewhere. It is of interest to note that there is a difference
between robust points, which usually have faceted striking
platforms, and more gracile variants without faceting. The
percentage of the fossile directeur, the Emireh point in Boqer
Tachtit drops from 3% (Level 1), 8% (Level 2), and one out
of 25 tools (Level 3), to none in Level 4. Also the frequency
of bidirectional Levallois points drops from 40% in Level 1,
to 19% in Level 2, to 10 points out of 25 in Level 3, to none
in Level 4 (Marks and Kaufman 1983). Without going into
specifics, though in a recent paper (Williams and Bergman
2010) the assemblages of Levels XXV–XXI at Ksar Akil are
treated on the whole as the IUP (formerly “KA Phase A”), it
is stated that while Levels XXV–XXIV include opposed
platform cores with parallel sides, Levels XXIII–XXI feature
single platform blade cores with converging sides and
faceted platforms to produce elongated points that morphologically
resemble ‘Levallois’ types. While Azoury (1986)
classified the points and cores as ‘Levallois’, Ohnuma (1988;
Ohnuma and Bergman 1990) described them as ‘prismatic’
or ‘pyramidal’ cores to produce ‘non-Levallois’ blades. The
tool assemblages from Levels XXIV-XXI are almost entirely
composed of UP types, including chamfered pieces. So, too,
at Üçağızlı, Layers F through I are considered as IUP (Kuhn
et al. 2009). Though items that correspond to a strict definition
of Levallois products are quite rare, with but a few
exceptions at the base of the sequence, attributes reminiscent
of Levallois technology are quite common among both unretouched
items and tools. Indeed, the dominant mode of blade
production bears many features of Levallois technology,
including the use of hard hammer percussion and platform
faceting. Levallois blade and elongated point blanks are most
common in Layers I and H, and then decline in abundance,
essentially disappearing above layer F. Evidence for preparation
of striking platforms by grinding or abrasion is essentially
absent in the IUP layers. The authors state that
“... Plain blades predominate among both retouched tools
and larger unretouched artifacts in all of the layers except I
[the lowermost IUP level], although they do become slightly
more common with time” (Kuhn et al. 2009, p. 96). Elsewhere
they state that “... In layers I, H1-H3, H and G more than
35% of larger flakes and blades possess broad, faceted striking
platforms. Plain, unfaceted platforms, the most common
type, also tend to be large. Above layer F there are few faceted
platforms”. The chanfrein occurs in small numbers in
the earliest IUP layer, I. Most IUP cores at Üçağızlı have
relatively flat removal surfaces and preserve remnants of a
single, faceted striking platform.
7.4	 Summary
It appears that currently it is impossible to tie in the origins
of the Ahmarian directly with any of the known IUP variants
in the Near East. It is of interest to note the observation made
by Kuhn et al. (2009, p. 97) concerning the sequence at
Üçağızlı: “... The boundary between layers E [i.e. “IUP”]
and F [i.e. “Ahmarian”] seems to represent a saltational technological
shift (Kuhn et al., Fig. 13). In this respect, changes
in core technology contrast strongly with the continuity in
tool and blank forms”. It should be noted that the so far earliest
dated Ahmarian assemblages, i.e., Units III-IV in Kebara,
are dominated by blade tools, similar to those observed in
most of the IUP variants, but the technology indeed differs as
there are no bidirectional or unidirectional ‘Levallois’points,
and there are but very rare occurrences of butt faceting (Bar-­
Yosef and Belfer-Cohen in prep.;AB-C pers. obs.). The same
can be said about other Ahmarian assemblages in the Levant.
Thus the Ahmarian evidently stands out at its first appearances
from the local, preceding IUP industries, the differences
clearly observed in the technological aspects rather than in the
typology. Apparently, we can now quite confidently also separate
between the Ahmarian sensu stricto in its final stages and
the subsequent industries. It appears that here the difference
reflects exactly an opposite trend. While there was a continu-
ity of the same basic leptolithic technology, the products
were of different morphotypes, as observed in Masraqan and
Nebekian assemblages, the earliest entities in the following
Epipalaeolithic sequence. It is interesting to consider which
came first and which followed. The main apparent change
between the final Mousterian assemblages and those of the
IUP was a typological one, with the notable increase in the
dominance of blade tools, endscrapers and burins (as well as
7  The Ahmarian in the Context of the Earlier Upper Palaeolithic in the Near East
102
the appearance of specific, relatively short-­lived tool forms,
i.e. the chanfrein and the Emireh point). The apparent change
between the IUP and that of theAhmarian was a technological
one (and see above). The next prominent change was once
again typological, as observed between the Ahmarian and the
following early Epipalaeolithic entities. This said, the picture
was more complex than that, as one should remember the
rather episodic incursion of the Aurignacian into the
coastal/Mediterranean Levant, disrupting the endemic
Ahmarian sequence there. Moreover, there were other occurrences,
the lack of dating for which complicates their placement
within the local prehistoric sequence, beyond occasional
stratigraphic correlations. At least some were synchronous
with and later than the Ahmarian, differing both technologically
and typologically, e.g. the Atlitian in the Mediterranean
zone and the Arqov-Divshon entity in the more arid margins.
To conclude, it is interesting to note that, after a long
period of stasis in Levantine UP studies during much of the
twentieth century, an impressive body of research has accumulated
in recent decades, revolutionizing our knowledge
concerning the shift from the MP to the UP and the UP
sequence in the Levant. Still, numerous questions remain
open to debate. This is of particular significance not only for
the local prehistoric record but also globally, due to the location
of the Levant along the most likely route of dispersal for
modern humans from Africa to Eurasia. For sure there will
be new genetic, chronological and archaeological data forthcoming
in future years, and thus one has to treat the picture
depicted here as reflecting the ‘here and now’.
References
Arensburg B, Belfer-Cohen A (1998) Sapiens and Neandertals: rethinking
the Levantine Middle Paleolithic hominids. In: Akazawa T, Aoki
K, Bar-Yosef O (eds) Neandertals and modern humans in Western
Asia. Plenum Press, New York, pp 311–322
Azoury I (1986) Ksar Akil, Lebanon: a technological and typological
analysis of the transitional and Early Upper Palaeolithic levels of
Ksar Akil and Abu Halka. BAR International Series 289, Oxford
Bar-Yosef O, Belfer A (1977) The Lagaman industry. In: Bar-Yosef O,
Phillips JL (eds) Prehistoric investigations in Gebel Maghara, northern
Sinai. Qedem 7 Monographs of the Institute of Archaeology,
Jerusalem, pp 42–84
Bar-Yosef O, Belfer-Cohen A (2004) The Qafzeh Upper Paleolithic
assemblages: 70 years later. Eurasian Prehist 2(1):145–180
Bar-Yosef O, Arnold M, Mercier N, Belfer-Cohen A, Goldberg P,
Housley R, Laville H, Meignen L, Vogel JC, Vandermeersch B
(1996) The dating of the Upper Palaeolithic layers in Kebara Cave,
Mt. Carmel. J Archaeol Sci 23(2):297–306
Barzilai O, Alex B, Boaretto E, Hershkovita I, Marder O (2014) The
Early Upper Paleolithic at Manot Cave, Western Galilee, Israel.
In: Proceedings of the European Society for the study of Human
Evolution (PESHE 3), Florence, p 34
Belfer-Cohen A, Goring-Morris AN (2002) Why microliths?
Microlithization in the Levant. In: Elston RG, Kuhn SL (eds)
Thinking small: global perspectives on microlithic technologies.
Archeology Papers of the American Anthropological Association,
Arlington, pp 57–68
Belfer-Cohen A, Goring-Morris AN (2003) Current issues in Levantine
Upper Palaeolithic research. In: Goring-Morris AN, Belfer-Cohen
A (eds) More than meets the eye: studies on Upper Palaeolithic
diversity in the Near East. Oxbow, Oxford, pp 1–12
Belfer-Cohen A, Goring-Morris AN (2014a) The Upper Palaeolithic
and earlier Epi-Palaeolithic of Western Asia. In: Renfrew AC,
Bahn PG (eds) The Cambridge world prehistory, vol 3. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp 1381–1407
Belfer-Cohen A, Goring-Morris AN (2014b) On the rebound – a
Levantine view of Upper Palaeolithic dynamics. In: Otte M, Le
Brun-Ricalens F (eds) Modes de Contacts et de Déplacements
au Paléolithique Eurasiatique. ERAUL 140 – ArchéoLogiques 5.
Université de Liège, Liège, pp 27–36
Belfer-Cohen A, Davidzon A, Goring-Morris AN et al (2004) Nahal
Ein Gev I: a late Upper Palaeolithic site by the sea of Galilee, Israel.
Paléorient 30(1):25–46
Bergman CA (1987) Ksar Akil, Lebanon. A technological and typological
analysis of the later Palaeolithic levels of Ksar Akil. vol. II:
levels XIII-VI. BAR International Series 329, Oxford
Bosch MD, Manino MA, Prendergast AL, O’Connell TC, Demarchi B,
Taylor SM, Niven L, van der Plicht J (2015a) New chronology for
Ksâr ‘Akil (Lebanon) supports Levantine route of modern human
dispersal into Europe. Proc NatlAcad Sci U SA 112(25):7683–7688
Bosch MD, Manino MA, Prendergast AL, O’Connell TC, Demarchi B,
Taylor SM, Niven L, van der Plicht J (2015b) Reply to Douka et al.:
critical evaluation of the Ksâr ‘Akil chronologies. Proc Natl Acad
Sci U S A 112(51):E7035
Bourguignon L (1996) Un Mousterien tardif sur le site d’Umm el
Tlel (Bassin d’el Khowm, Syrie)? Exemples des nivaux II base’
et III2A. In: Carbonell E, Vaquero M (eds) The last Neandertals,
the first anatomically modern humans. Universitat Rovira i Virgili,
Barcelona, pp 317–336
Bourguignon L (1998) Les industries du Paleolithique Intermediaire
d’Umm el Tlel. Nouveaux elements pour le passage entre
Paleolithique Moyen et Superieur dans le Bassin d’El Khowm.
In: Otte M (ed) Prehistoire d’Anatolie. Genese de Deux Mondes.
ERAUL 85, Liege, pp 709–730
Callaway E (2014) The Neanderthal in the family. Nature 507:414–416
Coinman NR (ed) (2000) The archaeology of the Wadi al-Hasa,
West-Central Jordan, vol. 2: excavations at Middle, Upper and
Epipaleolithic sites. Anthropological Research Papers No. 52.
Arizona State University, Tempe
Coinman NR (2002) New evidence of Ksar Akil scrapers in the
Levantine Upper Paleolithic. Paléorient 28(2):87–104
Coinman NR (2003) The Upper Palaeolithic of Jordan: new data from
the Wadi al-Hasa. In: Goring-Morris AN, Belfer-Cohen A (eds)
More than meets the eye: studies on Upper Palaeolithic diversity in
the Near East. Oxbow, Oxford, pp 151–170
Conard NJ, Bolus M (2006) The Swabian Aurignacian and its place in
European prehistory. In: Bar-Yosef O, Zilhão J (eds) Towards a definition
of the Aurignacian. Trabalhos de Arqueologia 45. American
School of Prehistoric Research/Instituto Português de Arqueologia,
Lisboa, pp 211–239
Copeland L (1975) The Middle and Upper Paleolithic of Lebanon and
Syria in the light of recent research. In: Wendorf F, Marks AE (eds)
Problems in prehistory: North Africa and the Levant. SMU Press,
Dallas, pp 317–350
Copeland L (1982) The Ksar Akil Scraper: a Late Upper Palaeolithic
tool-type of the Levant. In: Saidah R (ed) Archaeologie au Levant.
Serie Archéologique, vol. 9. Collection de la Maison de l’Orient
Mediterranéen 12, Beirut, pp 57–67
Copeland L (2003) The Levantine Upper Palaeolithic: a commentary
on contributions to the Philadelphia symposium. In: Goring-­
N. Goring-Morris and A. Belfer-Cohen
103
Morris AN, Belfer-Cohen A (eds) More than meets the eye: studies
on Upper Palaeolithic diversity in the Near East. Oxbow, Oxford,
pp 242–248
Davidzon A, Goring-Morris AN (2003) Sealed in stone: the Upper
Palaeolithic early Ahmarian knapping method in the light of refitting
studies at Nahal Nizzana XIII, Western Negev, Israel. J Israel
Prehistor Soc – Mitekufat Haeven 33:75–206
Douka K, Bergman CA, Hedges REM et al (2013) Chronology of Ksar
Akil (Lebanon) and implications for the colonization of Europe by
anatomically modern humans. PLoS One 8(9):e72931
Douka K, Higham TFG, Bergman CA (2015) Statistical and archaeological
errors invalidate the proposed chronology for the site of Ksar
Akil. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 112(51):E7034
Ferring CR (1980) Technological variability and change in the Late
Paleolithic of the Negev. Dissertation, South Methodist University.
Ferring CR (1988) Technological change in the Upper Paleolithic of
the Negev. In: Dibble H, Montet-White A (eds) Upper Pleistocene
prehistory of Western Eurasia. University Museum Monographs/
University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, pp 333–348
Fox JR (2003) The Tor Sadaf lithic assemblage: a technological study
of the earliest Levantine Upper Palaeolithic in the Wadi al-Hasa. In:
Goring-Morris AN, Belfer-Cohen A (eds) More than meets the eye:
studies on Upper Palaeolithic diversity in the Near East. Oxbow,
Oxford, pp 80–94
Fox JR, Coinman NR (2004) Emergence of the Levantine Upper
Paleolithic: evidence from the Wadi Hasa. In: Brantingham PJ,
Kuhn SL, Kerry KW (eds) The early Upper Paleolithic beyond
Western Europe. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los
Angeles, pp 97–112
Garrod DAE (1953) The relations between Southwest Asia and Europe
in the later Palaeolithic Age. J World Hist 1:13–38
Garrod DAE, Bate DMA (1937) The stone age of Mt. Carmel.
Excavations at the Wadi-Mughara, vol 1. Clarendon Press, Oxford
Gilead I (1981) Upper Palaeolithic tool assemblages from the Negev
and Sinai. In: Cauvin J, Sanlaville P (eds) Préhistoire du Levant.
CNRS, Paris, pp 331–342
Gilead I (1991) The Upper Paleolithic period in the Levant. J World
Prehist 5(2):105–154
Goring-Morris AN (1980) Upper Palaeolithic sites from Wadi Fazael,
lower Jordan Valley. Paléorient 6:173–191
Goring-Morris AN (1995a) Upper Palaeolithic occupation of the Ein
Qadis area on the Sinai/Negev border. ‘Atiqot 27:1–14
Goring-Morris AN (1995b) Complex hunter-gatherers at the end of the
Paleolithic (20,000–10,000 BP). In: Levy TE (ed) The archaeology
of society in the Holy Land. Leicester University Press, London,
pp 141–168
Goring-Morris AN, Belfer-Cohen A (2006) A hard look at the
‘Levantine Aurignacian’: how real is the taxon? In: Bar-Yosef O,
Zilhão J (eds) Towards a definition of the Aurignacian. Trabalhos de
Arqueologia 45. American School of Prehistoric Research/Instituto
Português de Arqueologia, Lisboa, pp 294–313
Goring-Morris AN, Davidzon A (2006) Straight to the point:
Upper Palaeolithic Ahmarian lithic technology in the Levant.
Anthropologie 44(1):93–111
Goring-Morris AN, Hovers E, Belfer-Cohen A (2009) The dynamics
of Pleistocene settlement patterns and human adaptations in the
Levant – an overview. In: Shea JJ, Lieberman D (eds) Transitions
in prehistory: papers in honor of Ofer Bar-Yosef. David Brown/
Oxbow, Oakville, pp 187–254
Hershkovitz I, Marder O,AyalonA, Bar-Matthews M,Yasur G, Boaretto
E, Caracuta V, Alex B, Frumkin A, Goder-Goldberger M, Gunz P,
Holloway RL, Latimer B, Lavi R, Matthews A, Slon V, Bar-Yosef
Mayer D, Berna F, Bar-Oz G,Yeshurun R, May H, Hans MG, Weber
GW, Barzililai O (2015) Levantine cranium from Manot Cave
(Israel) foreshadows the first European modern humans. Nature
520:216–219. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14134
Hours F (1974) Remarques sur l’utilisation de listes-types pour l’étude
de Paléolithique Supérieur et de l’Epipaléolithique du Levant.
Paléorient 2:3–18
Hovers E, Belfer-Cohen A (2013) On variability and complexity: lessons
from the Levantine Middle Paleolithic record. Curr Anthropol
54(S8):S337–S357
Inizan M-L, Roche H, Tixier J (1992) Technology of knapped stone, vol
3. Cercle de Recherches et d’Études Préhistoriques, Meudon
Jones M, Marks AE, Kaufman D (1983) Boker: the artifacts. In: Marks
AE (ed) Prehistory and paleoenvironments in the Central Negev,
Israel, vol. III. The Avdat/Aqev area, part 3. SMU Press, Dallas,
pp 283–329
Kadowaki S (2013) Issues of chronological and geographical distributions
of Middle and Upper Palaeolithic cultural variability in the
Levant and implications for the learning behavior of Neanderthals
and Homo sapiens. In: Akazawa T, Nishiaki Y, Aoki K (eds)
Dynamics of learning in Neanderthals and modern humans, vol. 1:
cultural perspectives. Springer, New York, pp 59–91
Kadowaki S (2017) Technology of striking platform preparation on lithic
debitage from Wadi Aghar, southern Jordan and its relevance to the
Upper Palaeolithic technology in the Levant. AL-Rafidan 38:23–32
Kadowaki S, Omori T, NishiakiY (2015) Variability in Early Ahmarian
lithic technology and its implications for the model of a Levantine
origin of the Protoaurignacian. J Hum Evol 82:67–87
Kerry KW, Henry DO (2003) Tor Fawaz (J403): an Upper Palaeolithic
occupation in the Jebel Qalkha area, Southwest Jordan. In: Goring-­
Morris AN, Belfer-Cohen A (eds) More than meets the eye: studies
on Upper Palaeolithic diversity in the Near East. Oxbow, Oxford,
pp 171–184
Kuhn SL, Stiner MC, Güleç E, Özer I,Yılmaz H, Baykara I, Açıkkol A,
Goldberg P, Martínez Molina K, Ünay E, Suata-Alpaslan F (2009)
The early Upper Paleolithic occupations at Uçagızlı cave (Hatay,
Turkey). J Hum Evol 56:87–113
Lengyel G, Boaretto E, Fabre L, Ronen A (2006) New AMS 14C dates
from the early Upper Paleolithic Sequence of Raqefet cave, Mount
Carmel, Israel. Radiocarbon 48(2):253–258
Marder O, Alex B, Ayalon A, Bar-Matthews M, Bar-Oz G, Bar-Yosef
Mayer D, Berna F, Boaretto E, Caracuta V, Frumkin A, Goder-­
Goldberger M, Hershkovitz I, Latimer B, Lavi R, Matthews A,
Weiner S, Weiss U, Yas’ur G, Yeshrun R, Barzilai O (2013) The
Upper Palaeolithic of Manot cave, Western Galilee, Israel: the 2011-­
12 excavations. Antiquity 87(337.) Project gallery
Marks AE (1981) The Upper Palaeolithic of the Negev. In: Sanlaville
O, Cauvin J (eds) Prehistoire du Levant. CNRS, Paris, pp 343–352
Marks AE (1983) The sites of Boqer Tachtit and Boqer: a brief introduction.
In: Marks AE (ed) Prehistory and paleoenvironments in the
Central Negev, Israel. volume III, the Avdat/Aqev area, part 3. SMU
Press, Dallas, pp 15–37
Marks AE (2003) Reflections on Levantine Upper Palaeolithic studies:
past and present. In: Goring-Morris AN, Belfer-Cohen A (eds) More
than meets the eye: studies on Upper Palaeolithic diversity in the
Near East. Oxbow, Oxford, pp 249–264
MarksAE, Ferring CR (1988) The early Upper Paleolithic of the Levant.
In: Hoffecker JF, Wolf CA (eds) The Early upper Paleolithic: evidence
from Europe and the Near East. BAR International Series
437. BAR, Oxford, pp 43–72
Marks AE, Kaufman D (1983) Boqer Tachtit: the artifacts. In: Marks
AE (ed) Prehistory and paleoenvironments in the Central Negev,
Israel. vol. III, the Avdat/Aqev Area, part 3. SMU Press, Dallas,
pp 69–125
Mellars P (2006) Archeology and the dispersal of modern humans
in Europe: deconstructing the “Aurignacian”. Evol Anthropol
15(5):167–182
Monigal K (2002) The Levantine Leptolithic: blade production from the
Lower Paleolithic to the dawn of the Upper Paleolithic. Unpublished
PhD, Southern Methodist University
7  The Ahmarian in the Context of the Earlier Upper Palaeolithic in the Near East
104
Monigal K (2003) Technology, economy, and mobility at the beginning
of the Levantine Upper Palaeolithic. In: Goring-Morris AN,
Belfer-Cohen A (eds) More than meets the eye: studies on Upper
Palaeolithic diversity in the Near East. Oxbow, Oxford, pp 118–133
Newcomer MH (1968–1969) The chamfered pieces from Ksar Akil
(Lebanon). Bull Inst Archaeol 8-9:177–191
Ohnuma K (1988). Ksar ‘Akil, Lebanon. A technological study of
the Earlier Upper Palaeolithic levels of Ksar ‘Akil, vol. III. Levels
XXV-XIV. BAR International Series 426, Oxford
Ohnuma K, Bergman KA (1990) A technological analysis of the Upper
Palaeolithic Levels (XXV-VI) of Ksar Akil, Lebanon. In: Mellars P,
Stringer C (eds) The emergence of modern humans: an archaeological
perspective. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh, pp 91–138
Otte M, Shidrang S, Flas D (eds) (2012) The Aurignacian from Yafteh
cave and its context (2005–2008 excavations). ERAUL 132, Liège
Pennisi E (2013) More genomes from Denisova Cave show mixing of
early human groups. Science 340(6134):799
Phillips JL (1994) The Upper Paleolithic chronology of the Levant
and the Nile valley. In: Bar Yosef O, Kra RS (eds) Late Quaternary
chronology and paleoclimates of the eastern Mediterranean.
Radiocarbon. University of Arizona, Tuscon, pp 169–176
Rebollo NR, Weiner S, Brock F et al (2011) New radiocarbon dating
of the transition from the Middle to the Upper Paleolithic in Kebara
cave, Israel. J Archaeol Sci 38(9):2424–2433
Reich D, Green RE, Kircher M, Krause J, Patterson N, Durand EY,
Viola B, Briggs AW, Stenzel U, Johnson PLF, Maricic T, Good JM,
Marques-Bonet T,Alkan C, Fu Q, Mallick S, Li H, Meyer M, Eichler
EE, Stoneking M, Richards M, Talamo S, Shunkov MV, Derevianko
AP, Hublin JJ, Keiso J, Slatkin M, Pääbo S (2010) Genetic history
of an archaic hominin group from Denisova Cave in Siberia. Nature
468(7327):1053–1060
Rust A (1950) Die Höhlenfunde von Jabrud (Syrien). Karl Wachholtz,
Neumunster
Sharon G, Oron M (2014) The lithic tool arsenal of a Mousterian hunter.
Quat Int 331:1–17
Teyssandier N (2008) Revolution or evolution: the emergence of the
Upper Paleolithic in Europe. World Archaeol 40(4):493–519
Teyssandier N, Bon F, Bordes JG (2010) Within projectile range.
Some thoughts on the appearance of the Aurignacian in Europe.
J Anthropol Res 66:209–229
Williams JK, Bergman CA (2010) Upper Paleolithic levels XIII-XVI
(A and B) from the 1937–1938 and 1947–1948 Boston College
excavations and the Levantine Aurignacian at Ksar Akil, Lebanon.
Paléorient 36(2):117–161
Zilhão J (2013) Neandertal-modern human contact in western Eurasia:
issues of dating, taxonomy, and cultural associations. In:Akazawa T,
Nishiaki Y, Aoki K (eds) Dynamics of learning in Neanderthals and
modern humans. Vol. 1: cultural perspectives. Springer, New York,
pp 21–57
Zilhão J (2014) The Upper Palaeolithic of Europe. In: Renfrew AC,
Bahn PG (eds) The Cambridge world prehistory, vol 3. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, pp 1753–1785
N. Goring-Morris and A. Belfer-Cohen
View publication statsView publication stats